could be more rental than a lot of what is being built mow and it could meet a need, but i think the cap is clungy and doesn't really work and again we can sit around for a couple of years and figure out whether they are d/b/a or not and i think there has been has to be a better way and i agree with one of speakers and i think it was paul who left that said yeah let's take a look at what happens once they are built i don't think the cap gets that -- and i suggest some alternate tenive like if the percentage of units being approved in the city of these -- exceed a certain% like 10% of the units of the city being approved in the or five% i don't know the exact number that triggers an analysis because if it's some low%, five% of the unit being built or seven%, i don't think it's a

big deal but if it gets above the total number of housing units building built, yeah, it's a problem if all developers are out there are building these fish convenient units rather than two bedroom units and but i think it's clungy and doesn't get at what we are trying to get at. well i find myself in agreement with commissioner and clungy is probably the right word 350 is the right number and i completely agree with commissioner that a number is only as good as the study and i'm curious on who's going to fund the study and watch the study and one of the question that we are going to ask with that and this is also so much location based where the location of this unit is downtown you know square it has the possibility of becoming a hotel unit and if it's out in

the sunset it's probably not going to happen and having units 15 units in a small building that is an economy unit and in an area that is not for student housing but may be it's for uss may be it has practicality to it and there are a lot of factors that are not necessarily addresses and may be in phase two and this is a wild idea from rodney but i would suggest breaking it up in a larger pool and give 25 to market rate and 25 to senior and 25 to affordable and 25 to market rate and share that category and i realize that,that is accurately creating different categorize which you are trying not do so it would be nice to spread that out and southerly, i'm not sure how we are going to vote but i'm supportive of the microunits and i'm supportive of the cap but i would very much like it put the condition if we can on the study

and bring some signs to it when it's completed. >> commissioner woo? thank you i also want to be supportive of supervisor wiener and how they have couple to with a way to pile and and understand what these units are being used for and in inc., the idea of putting a criteria on how and when we study it, i would be interested in that and i'm open to commissioner hillists idea of is there another way but i think it's hard for us to create right now in this forum. i think that what matters is where these units are going to be built and i think that there is a tendency and may be i can ask staff will there be a tendency to build them in areas where there is no density control according to f a r? lindsay from the planning

staff, i don't think we have actual enough proposals before us to answer that. the one project that we have before us is has the potential to have a lot of these microunits in one building. but i have heard from other developers and community groups that these would perhaps be mixed in with projects that include a wider unit mix and so that would sort-of change the answer to that? i think the short answertia we just don't know yet. >> those are some of the things that for me, i want to understand. i think that there is a place for these units for certain populations, or certain settle of the market. but it's just not that clear what that is yet and i really don't believe that it's for or that it will solve any affordability problems and i hear this phrase affordable by design but i think it's barely affordable by design i don't think it really reaches

people in a m i's that need deep' fordable and i think the people in 50% of a m i range are already in the market it's not that they have nowhere to live or nowhere to go. and so, as i it stands now, i do support the cap and the supervisor and is the process they have gone through with the community. >> commissioner guyyo. yes, a couple of things mr. [name?] is in the audience and i had a short conversation with him today and may be you can give us since you participated in the process of arriving at 375 can you spend a couple of minutes informing us as to the participants and process that got you to that figure. >> thank you commissioner i actually did not participate. the conversation about the number i would defer that to sarah short who was instrumental

in facilitating that dialog but if there is another question that you would like to ask me from the perspective of couselor committee housing organizations. >> you were mentioned in a list of supporters. yeah, well we have a coalition of many many organizations some of them were very actively involved in crafting this compromise which we are very supportive of i would love to see our members come to go in a unified way and so i would actually defer to sarah she could tell you more about that conversation and the smart outcome from it. >> i'm generally supportive, i think of it but, i have this concern as other commissioners have raised about the cap itself. and also, i had my notes the same concern that other commissioners had exactly about what this study is suppose to do because the language in the ordinance is very vague. it just says the planning department is suppose to come one a study that informs the board as to whether or not this

should be more units bill built and it doesn't seem that, that offers much direction and i think the information need to be collected on not only the production and the cost and everybody everything the physical units and building, but also on the people who are moving in there. and pardon me,? i could speak to that if you would like. >> in a minute. yeah --. >> okay and i think that the other possible shortcoming is if we only base it on the initial move-ins it doesn't speak to the long 87 fee of the process and if we cut it off, and the building continues to evolve in some fashion and whether it's apartment -- i don't know are these consider does are these going to be apartments? ms., hey ward? contemporary plate that they are going to be for

sale? could be either i have another quick question, it has been mentioned the commissioner approval process aren't these going to be of right departing on the development and zone and all of those things. >> didn't depending on all of those i don't shoo so they don't have to come back to the commission for any reason. not by virtue-. >> okay anyway if we can get some handle around the study, that would help and i think it's also location based and comparison somehow with the neighborhood area? i don't know i'm not the expert in this kind of stuff but ms. short mentioned things that are going to be happening and if that is already being considered that is great. and i think, i might try -- the only thought i have i

had on the cap is may be doing away with a numerical number. and saying that after x number of units gets built, we have this study, whatever form it taifnlgtz and that based on that study, then the board of supervisors can decide whether to continue the program or modify it, or kill it or whatever. and then, in that fashion, i don't know if that interactions more uncertainty, mr. kennedy, can i ask you a question? as long as you are one of the leading developers of this concept? sure. >> yes various argument have been made about the cap for it against it there was a comparison made with respect to the office you know cap that we

have ... and the under the proposition vision and how that has been in some view a positive thing i'm sure that other developers have a negative view about it but if we had the 375 cap, vs. one that just said we are going to not have a cap but we are going to continue to study it and as a result of that study, we might modify the program, is that a worse approach than having a numeric cap. >> no, i think it's better because i think it allows flexibility down the road and the problem with having a cap is the timing with the planning department whether you know there is six months worth of planning before you submit what you are going to do and it's hard to know if it's a moving target it's how many projects are a proved or built and some get approved but don't get built because of financing or because higher and better use comes on even they some get financing

and so a plan to revisit the issue down the road is better and spur more competition for developing these kinds of units and give the city a better glimpse of exactly what is going to happen and it's important to know too in these microunit all of the b m i unit stay on the site and and it's something that is not done now and that affordable housing unit people are pushing for and i agree with completely. >> i don't know i offered that up as a potential other approach and we can set that number at whatever the -- we can set the number at whatever and -- it just seemed to me, that,that is another approach that we could take. yeah, i want to clarify my comment about being supportive of the dap and supporting the cap in my opinion is to study

and analyze it and then releasemore inventory later on and so that is my hope that the cap gives you some answers to proceed forward and not to eliminate forever. commissioner swiney. >> okay i have an idea based upon what commissioner sag guy 88 [spelling?] said in terms of possibility because the cap actually accomplishes nothing and i think it was after the negotiations and basically there are attempts to get something that could pass through the board and this was put forward as a possibility and try to get some votes from a number of supervisors but i think the more logical way, to do it to have a time situation. not a number situation. and may be, in two years, i would say, after the package of this, is to come back to the planning commission and the board of supervisors for action and the action would be continue as is, modify or revise. and that would be my

motion. the motion also would include the two things that staff asked for having it include part of 340 location part infinite planning code, i believe you asked for had a and then the minimum open space of ten square feet per unit and basically would be a 24 months report back and it's more than a report it would actually have to be an action item that the commission and the board of supervisors depending on who has to do this i'm not sure of the lodgestics it may be that the board of superior supervisors would have to take an action to affirm or modify or end the program but i think it's better to put it out there and that would be my motion.. >> i don't know if the city torch is here and has any comments on it. commissioner more it seems like there is more comments.

>> commissioner moore? , it seems like the supervisors have spent a long time negotiating a cap and us not understanding what is at the core of cap, i would defer to them on what the wherein for had a specific number is and including the picking up on suggestions. of commissioner hillsist and anthony knee made as the trends towards 200 a draft, a report would have to basically show certain results and certain matrices which are important to the board of supervisors to the community and the to us as the commissioners to see if we wantgo forward and what is seriously missing for me is how are these units coming to mart market are they coming tooth thought in one building are they small units in existing other buildings there is a complete darkness about how we are

talking about this new phenomenon without understanding what circumstances and is which locations it will arise we don't have any idea about that and in the absence of these many questions i kind-of feeling like falling into any stack and conditions we need to have a couple more answers. i'm supportive of monitoring trends which necessarily doesn't have to be express ired by a specific number which by developers would be difficult to do and so if you have a building by which the unit would be pushed out to three 90, you would be pushing up the cap and you will you have to have more information on how the unit come to market do they come as 60 units in one charge or packages in five and fen or 120 units of a kind and there are questions that are not measured so we get a better

measure of how it's done and i also believe this terms of reviewing or understanding this unit. we need a couple of pro toe types of which we have a measure of quality. we have a good understanding of what makes good one, two and three bedroom units in terms of general sizes, location and is square footages when it comes to those unit times but about the new units we don't know anything, we have one small reasonably well looking picture of a unit and i'm sure there are other version and is this is mr. kennedy's own unit and it looks quite good but there are more variation and is i think we have to have quality control because when it becomes small there are certain traps and shortcuts relative to all kind of things. penetration, door jams and how all of the standard codes which apply to any other unit are a lied and so i kind-of feel like

we need a little handbook about the do dos and don't before we law firm this efficiency unit thing aside from the square footage i'm not really saying much accept that we can support it but we need a lot for definition before it becomes a fully codified product. >> commissioner hillist. can i ask miss short a question do you mind commenting on some of the discussions here like the interpretive discussed about the cap and time. >> yeah, we went through that in terms of the other possibility onlies of doing it based on a number of years and whether or not it should be something that continues until we sort-of take a look and decide which don't want it vs. this is more of a hard sunset idea and we are very dedicated to the idea of a hard sunset so that we really make sure that we

are -- this is responsible development and that, it would require reauthorizing legislation rather than you know the burden sort-of being on the community saying way weitbrecht stop. we think that it was much more wise to do it this way and that is part of the compromise that we came to. that is definitely a key piece of it. >> and do you know has there been did you look at at all have units been built at 22 square feet and are there issues with that has anybody look at that question? no as a matter of fact, i think this has been an ongoing question out there how many are actually in the queue; could you, what is the actual demand and also if you you can already do it at 220 square feet nobody seems fob clamoring do so why do we need to make this change and this is the type of question

that led us to this very point which, is that we want the ability to look at all of this before we just say "let go ahead and do it completely unmonitored," so there are so many question and is those are part of them and just to answer commissioner sag guya's question about the study we have the same concerns when we saw the draft legislation. there is -- very broad language there and it's sort of a place holder, i think we all are very committed to the idea that this would be reviewed and analyzed thoroughlily to you know, get what the impact is. supervisor chough is working on a amendment that would further clarify the study and detail what it would like like in terms of criteria and in terms of issues that other people have

brought up such as who would conduct the study would it be planning or would it be housing commissioner of housing. >> i think we are all in agreement this study needs to be defined and i think will time between who's living there and when it's built and you have to wait until it's built and pome are living in it to cubing that study. >> so i know in the draft legislation and may be solve fee can help me remember this there was a distinction between when the study would start and the cap so when the study would begin even when the cap was met. >> if you have 320 units that you are going to study and none of them are built that is not going to help you study anything. yeah, i get your point and so one thing is that i know there was a thought about let's

start the study before we hit the cap and that number might need to be looks at but, i think your point makes sense about you know, what if nothing is built yet? you know? and then we -- you know we can talk to the board members about you know, addressing that and think being that and in the terms of how we design this study to cop cap size. >> my thought is i'm supportive of some kind of reflection period and after some amount of time look unit were planned and reflected on and seen how it's done because this is new and we don't know what is going to happen but i think the cap is again clungy and i don't think if we are going it solve that here but may be it's just a -- recommendation to the board to look at alternatives. >> one other quick thing about the study too is that i believe the student housing while it's

excerpt from the cap wouldn't be extent from the study, is that your study and if that is not a clear then may be that is something we should study and consider and whether or not we want to writing the whole pool in the impact study and remember there is a cap on a very specific sub group which, is the "market rate," and student housing could be market rate but yeah, there is going to be a larger pool than what is actually built out there. so that is where i would recommend going and moving this out and not coming up with a solution before you rep.ping that the board comes up with alternative and is putting more meat on the bones as far as the cap and see where it goes. >> can i ask a question to staff i have been confused all week is that why staff is recommending disapproval of this because as it stands it needs

more study and work about how we are going to measure. the requirement reason why staff is recommending disapproval is because it the fact that this type of housing was a type of housing and when you are looking at it from a policy question it's either do you want the housing or should it be improve and if you want the housing it's unfair to say there is a cap on only the market housing but no cap on the affordable hotsings and it's the comment that its not an appropriate housing time for market rate people it's not appropriate for anyone and vice versa if it's appropriate for house affordable housings and students then it's appropriate for market housing. >> woo. i think i here on the commission some general support for these types of units and some type of rigorous study and so i'm going to make a motion to approve the legislation with a recommendation for the concept of a cap and leave it at that

and so not -- not the number, not you know us trying to retrigger it right here and also to ask for a rigorous reporting to be developed by the supervisors. and with the modifications proposed by staff on the what is that? the definition, the common space, and the section of the code. >> second. >> commissioner sag guy 88. >> yeah, i can support that may be one other idea for the study is that it could be i do not want to say multiple, but there could be some kind of track information to begin with and that might address some of commissioner hillist' concerns and that you can start trashing it right from the time that someone come in with one of

these or has housing units incorporate into a probability and start to collect numbers from that standpoint and then later you can enter into and that can be reported back to the commission and the board at some periodic if i am and then there would be the more rigorous study at some point and it seems to be a concern also of the housing community as well so i have confidence that, that will continue my own only comment is, i guess and someone else already said this it doesn't seem like 70 square feet could make that much of a difference but i don't know mr. kennedy if you want to take another hike uphere for a second and give us some idea. >> i'm just going to ask you one question and so and that is -- is there a real tippling point here? between 220

square feet which, is currently the minimum allowed for living space and then, i assume then that the bathroom and kitchen and closets are in addition, to that which would kick it up to what 300? yeah 250. >> 250 and so 50-sny thousand dollars per unit. ore yeah easily and so this is 700 bucks per square foot and it's probably a 55% reduction in square footage would translate to a 25% reduction in rent and there is a direct correlation between rent and purchase price and the total size, and i think, the important thing to remember is flexibility. and as i had point out you will find as of these microapartments going into larger projects that otherwise would not be able to be used and soul find the flexibility will create more unit just because the developers can now use parts

and portionability that previously they were not age to and also, i think we could expect that not every unit is going to be built to the absolute minimum. >> no, not at all and i think that if could go as low as 220 but i think the suite is 240, or 225 and we are building on hair inoon street all the 220 and i would like to invite the commission to come look at those and see exactly what they are like. >> thank you. >> commissioner was your motion such that you included all types of housing being the same or did you were you being encouraging them to have no cap if the cap is studied on affordable housing or you are not answering that question? >> i'm not making a motion to

include affordable housing. i heard the comments today about if it's okay for one population it should be okay for another population but i'm going to leave the legislation as it's written. well, i'm not quite sure on this one it sounds like it's moving in the right direction but i still don't like the consideration of a cap. i mean i do not really and this is my own opinion but, i was really surprised that there was such a turn out today and so much attention given to this and i think it's about mirroring the population and i think there is a fear by some leaders who control people and they are afraid that this might result in a huge inflixof people who are different and not controllable and who may vote the wrong way and they are not afraid of most market rate buildings because they are fairly expensive and the numbers are fairly low and that is why this cap is important because we don't want more than a certain number and if we get hundreds or thousands

of new people living in san francisco -- excuse me. there is no discussion here the commissioner is speaking he has the floor. >> you know if it's a large number and so i'm just say and i'm surprised and there must be some fear out there about this measure because the cap makes no sense otherwise unless some way to monitor or meter the population and so i'm probably voting against this although i think it's moving in the right direction. >> just for the record there was a an initial motion made by commissioner ant knee knee that was not second and had commissioner we made a motion to recommend approval with a concept of a cap to request a rigorous reporting program in moves proposed by staff. on that motion an teeny no.